Suchergebnisse

"Arthur Spiethoff (1873-1957), an economist of the German Historical School of Economics, is best known for his theory of the business cycle. Despite Spiethoff calling for a unified reading of his work, his epistemological thinking has received less attention. This book addresses that gap by analysing Spiethoff's theory of the business cycle in the light of his epistemological views. Putting Spiethoff's work in context, the book also investigates the most significant features of the evolution of the "research programme" of the German Historical School of Economics, with particular reference to the relationships between Schmoller, Sombart, Weber and Spiethoff. In addition, Spiethoff's work is compared with some of the scientific orientations of the current debates: on the epistemological side, the book examines the relationship between Spiethoff's views and some contemporary thinking on scientific realism, as well as methodological pluralism in social sciences. And, more broadly, it emphasises the analytical relevance of the historical approach in explaining the economic imbalances of contemporary capitalism, questioning the idea, widespread in the neoclassical approach, that taking historical specificities into account makes it hard to achieve a theoretically effective attitude. This book is a significant addition to the literature on the German Historical School of Economics and the history of economic thought, business cycle theory and macroeconomics more broadly"--

Schmoller and the historical approach: research programme and unsolved -- problems of a "classic" of economics -- Schmoller: from naturalism to historical specificity in the analysis of socio-economic systems -- A Century of German Debates on Crises: 1821-1925 -- Epistemological vision and analysis of the cycle: pure economics, ideal-typical models and historical-concrete explanations -- Explanations and causality in cycle theory -- Conclusions: the German Historical School of Economics and the search for a new paradigm.

Marx (especially in his youth) develops an original analysis of individualism, rooted in the structure of modern society. He criticizes on the one hand Hegel and many representatives of the 'Hegelian left', on the other hand 'vulgar materialism' and Feuerbach. Nevertheless, it remains true that in Marxism (especially in Second-International Marxism) 'individualism' was seen negatively and, consequently, the individual and their activities were always pushed towards the background, in order to emphasize the relevance of collective factors (classes, state, political parties, etc) for explainig social change.The question is whether this outcome has its roots in Marxian analyses or it is the result of a theoretical distortion by early Marxist orthodoxy, due to the lack of knowledge of young Marx's significant works: the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right was published in 1927, the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the German Ideology were published in full version in 1932 and the Grundrisse were published in 1939-41.However, to reclaim young Marx's rich analysis of modern individualism seems important in order to build a historically oriented analysis of individuals and of their relations to society. This approach would let us move away from the prevailing axiomatic approach of both mainstream economics—cente

Marx (especially in his youth) develops an original analysis of individualism, rooted in the structure of modern society. He criticizes on the one hand Hegel and many representatives of the 'Hegelian left', on the other hand 'vulgar materialism' and Feuerbach. Nevertheless, it remains true that in Marxism (especially in Second-International Marxism) 'individualism' was seen negatively and, consequently, the individual and their activities were always pushed towards the background, in order to emphasize the relevance of collective factors (classes, state, political parties, etc) for explainig social change.The question is whether this outcome has its roots in Marxian analyses or it is the result of a theoretical distortion by early Marxist orthodoxy, due to the lack of knowledge of young Marx's significant works: the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right was published in 1927, the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the German Ideology were published in full version in 1932 and the Grundrisse were published in 1939-41.However, to reclaim young Marx's rich analysis of modern individualism seems important in order to build a historically oriented analysis of individuals and of their relations to society. This approach would let us move away from the prevailing axiomatic approach of both mainstream economics—cente

This paper focuses on three fundamental aspects: the economic and social transformations brought about by the processes of globalization; the effects of these processes on demographic dynamics and migratory flows; the analysis of the Roma question, with particular reference to the processes of social inclusion/exclusion. This threefold analytical dimension seems also necessary in order to investigate a particular aspect: if we isolate the Roma question from a more general analytical context, we risk incurring an interpretative mistake: the isolated phenomenon becomes an object of analysis in itself, its morphology is considered a priority (and, it can be said, an exclusive one) both for its explanation and for the search for possible solutions. The whole macrocosm, within which it is inserted, vanishes into the background, becoming analytically irrelevant and changing the Roma question into an emergency problem.